John Calvin on Evangelism and Missions

The Founders Journal ^ | Summer 1998 | Ray Van Neste

[xzins]

Given there is no chain of command amongst us posters, how could any debate be resolved?

[suzyjaruki]

What would be resolution? What is the goal of debate?

[xzins]

Good questions.

Resolution could be defined as the sides agreeing that an endpoint had been reached.

The goal of any theological debate would be to arrive at a clear biblical position.

[suzyjaruki]

The goal of any theological debate would be to arrive at a clear biblical position.

I'm not sure if by this you mean (a)the participants in the debate arrive at a clearer understanding of their own position, or (b)the participants arrive at a clear understanding of their opponents position, or (c)the participants arrive at the same clear biblical position.

[xzins]

Ideally, that that could arrive at a correct, clear, mutually agreed upon biblical position.

That being a bit utopian, the fall back would be the definition of resolution...agreement that they've gotten as far as they're likely to get.

[suzyjaruki]

It will be my prayer that those who participate in the discussions on this forum would be given the discernment to know when they have gotten as far as they're likely to get and they put any animosity at the feet of their Savior.

Furthermore, self-examination should take place before entering a debate as to the motive for participation. Am I participating in a debate because I desire truth or because I want to bring down the opposition?

Xzins, It is my opinion that there is such a lack of forgiveness that a bitter root has grown up in these "Calminian Wars" between some of the participants. I'm not sure that debate can take place without the festering of old wounds that never heal.

It is disturbing because it destroys our witness. One of the goals of debate, where there is an audience, is to present to the hearers, in this case lurkers, a clear biblical position for our faith. It is a way of evangelizing. What message are we sending?

[xzins]

Suzy, it is so good to read what you have written.

Let us pray that such wisdom as you have written would affect all of us.

In terms of "resolution," it might be in order to acknowledge that many of our debates have reached the point where we could just agree that we can go no further at this time.

[A.J.Armitage]

Then why are you so compelled to do it, and to sprinkle your reply with ad hominems and insults?

I suppose it has to do with pride. Although beating that position of yours isn't much to be proud of, being akin to outboxing a five-year-old.

I've laid out my position, you've laid out yours (complete with insults to my intelligence). I'd say we are at an impasse, so unless you have some more insults to throw out, I'd say we leave it at that.

It would be an impasse, if your position had even a tiny scintilla of credibility. But it's jaw-droppingly stupid.

Incidentally, I'm not calling YOU stupid, just this view of yours. I suspect the problem on your end is also pride. You can't just admit you said something stupid, so instead you did something even stupider: you went on defending it. That's bound to make you say stupid things, when you could've just admitting to sticking your foot in it and been over it.

[Aggressive Calvinist]

Are you saying that it was a "sin" for the secular authorities of Geneva to execute Servetus?

[P-Marlowe]

Are you saying that it was a "sin" for the secular authorities of Geneva to execute Servetus?

I believe we are working from the premise that Calvin executed Servetus.

I am also saying that even secular authorities will be judged by the morality of the judgments they carry out. Just because the government sanctions a particular execution does not mean that those responsible for bringing the charges, the witnesses against the accused, the Jury, or the executioner will be absolved of MORAL responsibility.

[T.L.Sink]

I assume most of your message was directed to Ag. Calvinist
but I agree with the gravamen of your argument (if I
understand it). The words "relative', "sin", "morality",
etc., have to be more precisely defined if we are to under-
stand what we are saying to each other.I think - as do all
historians, philosophers of history, and most theologians
that there IS such a phenomenon as HISTORICAL relativism.
This can easily be confused with MORAL relativism even
though the two are NOT synonymous. Philosophers of history
from the classical period up to Toynbee and R.G. Collingwood have adduced from the data of history that
"morality" (in either the relative or absolute sense)
would fall within the broader penumbra of "history"
and must be evaluated and defined within that context.
These philosophers of history are historians but MORE
than just that -- they search for the laws and principles
that determine the rise and fall of civilizations.
In other words (I'm forced to oversimplify!) the "morality"
of Calvin when he had Servetus burned 1n 1553 was an act
that Calvin saw as necessary to further the cause of
righteousness and advance the Divine Will by following
the divine imperative to crush and extirpate heresy and
blasphemy. The "heretic" was dangerous because he jeopardized the SOULS AND SALVATION OF OTHERS by spreading
his damnable beliefs to them. This is why, during the
Spanish Inquisition, the burning of a heretic was called
"auto de fe" - act of faith. You furthered true religion
by saving others from damnation. As I suggested, this is
a great oversimplification but one has to try. Let me
say to all the others with whom I've corresponded, that
I think its been a great and interesting dialogue! Thanks,
P.S. A moral absolute can exist within historical
relativity.

[P-Marlowe]

1n 1553 was an act that Calvin saw as necessary to further the cause of righteousness and advance the Divine Will by following the divine imperative to crush and extirpate heresy and blasphemy. The "heretic" was dangerous because he jeopardized the SOULS AND SALVATION OF OTHERS by spreading his damnable beliefs to them.

Which if he actually believed his Calvinism he would have realized was impossible since no one (not even Servetus and his heeresies) is able to pluck the elect from the hand of God.

The fact that Calvin was afraid of Servetus' heresy and feared that people's eternal salvation could be jeopardized by this man's teachings is conclusive evidence that he did not believe his own theology. If he believed it, he would have realized that heresy posed no danger, that the elect would believe only the truth, that no man's salvation could be affected by the actions or beliefs or teachings of a mere heretic and that the number of elect was fixed long before God himself turned Michael Servetus into a raging heretic.

[T.L.Sink]

You sound like a brilliant Jesuit of the Counter-Reformation -- that's a compliment! I don't subscribe to
Calvinist doctrine (remember TULIP?) but I'll try to play
Devil's Advocate (Calvin would like that term!) The
paradox you cited is what many say is the Achilles' heel
of his theology. It goes (again, oversimplification!)
something like this: If EVERYTHING is predestined --
unconditional election - then what does it all matter?
But Calvin did say the we should live AS IF we had free
will and try to comport with the Gospel imperatives
for the simple reason that NO HUMAN can fathom the divine
mystery concerning election -- and FURTHERMORE!! -- if
you act as though YOU know you are among the elect or
the damned -- you are being filled with the sin of pride
and assuring your own fall! A story is told about Cotton
Mather giving his notorious sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an
Angry God" to his Calvinist comngregation in New England
-- but that can wait.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Jonathon Edwards is famous for that particular sermon

[T.L.Sink]

Yes, I stand corrected. To put it in modern parlance,
all those old New England Puritans look alike (pretty
bad!)

[D Edmund Joaquin]

it's a wooly season

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Jonathon Edwards is my hero

[A.J.Armitage]

So now, based only on T.L.Sink's say-so, you've taken it as a "premise" that Calvin (who wasn't even a citizen of Geneva) executed Servetus and now you're confident enough of Calvin's motive that you feel qualified to comment on whether Calvin really believed his own theology.

[T.L.Sink]

Now that I've got my Puritans straightened outI remember
that his sermon used to be included in many American
literature anthologies. He did have great facility in
the English language. That's probably why I had to read
it - however I remember only one great line within it:
"... he looks upon you as a spider- or some other loathsome
insect." And, speaking of insects, I had to read something
else he wrote about spiders spinning their webs. This was
not in a religious context but a "scientific" one, to
demonstrate his acute power of empirical observation.
He was obviously quite intelligent. Did you know that
the VERY FIRST Puritan clergy who came over were in
Anglican holy orders? Thus the name Puritan -- they were
clergy who wanted to "purify" the Church of England of
popery and Roman Catholic accretions. Of course they
very quickly fell away from apostolic holy orders and
became Congregational and a hodgepodge of other things.
In fact,in Hawthorne's Scarlet letter which went back
to the very firt Puritan clergy, he refers to Arthur
Dimsdale as a "priest." That's testimony to his very
perceptive and informed historical knowledge.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The "heretic" was dangerous because he jeopardized the SOULS AND SALVATION OF OTHERS by spreading his damnable beliefs to them. This is why, during the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of a heretic was called "auto de fe" - act of faith. You furthered true religion by saving others from damnation

my my grandmummy, what big teeth you have!